Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Sattar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority & others. – Respondents
W.P. No. 6889 of 2020
Decided on : 19-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned Dy. Advocate General
The court emphasized the substantive satisfaction of the RTA in issuing temporary permits and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Temporary Permit - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 68(3)(ca), Section 72 - The court discussed the requirement of route formulation for granting temporary permits under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also considered the absence of a statutory right for existing operators to submit objections for temporary permits under Section 72. The court highlighted the substantive satisfaction of the RTA in issuing temporary permits and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the grant of a temporary permit to respondent No.2 for a specific route, alleging errors of law and lack of opportunity for objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the route had already been formulated for the temporary permit, and there was no statutory right for existing operators to object to the grant of temporary permits. It also emphasized the substantive satisfaction of the RTA in issuing temporary permits.
Issues: The issues involved the requirement of route formulation for temporary permits, the absence of a statutory right for objections, and the substantive satisfaction of the RTA in issuing temporary permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that route formulation was not required for the grant of temporary permits, and there was no statutory right for existing operators to object to temporary permits. It also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.3.2020 whereby respondent No.2 has been granted temporary permit for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda.
2. According to the petitioner, he is a regular SCP operator since last so many years for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda one trip daily. He is having SCP No.56/P/17/9470 which is valid up to 31.5.2022. On 24.2.2020, respondent No.2 filed an application seeking temporary permit over vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-14-PA-0480 for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda one return trip daily. Petitioner, respondent No.3 and others filed objections before respondent No.1 along with affidavit to the effect that the route in question is not formulated u/s.68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the temporary permit in question cannot be granted. According to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing him and other objectors, respondent No.1 vide order dated 3.3.2020 has Sattar Khan. V/s. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority & others. allowed the application of respondent No.2 by granting temporary permit, hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that as on today, the post of President of STAT is vacant, therefore, the petitioner has no remedy except to file the present petition. He submits that respondent No.1 has committed an error of law by not granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other objectors. Petitioner and others had submitted their objections in respect of proposed timing of respondent No.2 which is ahead to their timing but the same has not been considered by respondent No.1 which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Tansukhlal Talati V/s. STAT : ILR [2012] MP 1872. He further submits that the RTA cannot grant the permit without formulation of the route u/s. 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the impugned action of respondent No.1 is contrary to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain V/s. MPSTAT : 2010 (3) MPLJ 60. Respondent No.1 has also failed to examine the need for grant of temporary permit. The petitioner and other operators are already operating on the same route and there is no need at present for additional permit by way of temporary permit, hence the impugned order be set aside.
4. Respondent No.2 was already having temporary permit for bus bearing Registration No.MP-14-PA-0480 36+2 DLX valid up to 29.2.2020. He submitted an application for extension of the said permit from 1.3.2020 to 30.4.2020 vide application dated 24.2.2020. Against the said application, present petitioner and respondent No.3 filed their objections only to the effect that there is no formulation of the route and about difference of timing. U/s. 68(3)(ca) there is a provision of formulation of route for plying stage carriages. In the present case, the route had already been formulated while granting the earlier temporary permit to respondent No.2. The petitioner and other objectors are also plying their buses on the same route, therefore, the route from Mandsaur to Nagda had already been formulated. The formulation of route is required only at the time of grant of fresh permit for new route. Therefore, there was no need for formulation of the route in the present case.
5. So far as opportunity of hearing to the objectors is concerned, In the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no provision for giving opportunity of hearing to the objectors while granting temporary permit. Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of Stage Carriage Permit by the RTA subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The detailed procedure is prescribed in Section 71 of the Act for consideration of applications received for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. In entire Section 71, there is no provision for calling or inviting objections from the existing transport
